I came upon the views of Rosann Liu in this article by David Cole.
Cole is an outspoken and controversial figure. Unlike most career academics and mainstream journalists who toe the PC line of 'respectability', he says what most people are afraid to talk about. Such as article below that deals with how government statistics cover up the fact of interracial rape.
In contrast, Liu comes across as a Teacher's Pet. All her speaking points are in line with Current PC. And as Cole argues, the great irony of Liu's views is that her anti-white attitudes are the result of her imitating white elites. White elites see the world in terms of good whites(themselves) and the bad whites(the deplorables). Supposedly, the privileged whites in Ivy League institutions, Big Corporations, Deep State, Wall Street, and top law firms are the good whites because they attend the nicest schools, hang around the 'nicest' people, and subscribe to PC. Granted, much of this is symbolic because, despite all their talk of 'equality' and 'diversity', they have sufficient privilege to live in mostly white, affluent, safe neighborhoods. So, that is the shtick of the Good Whites. To enjoy white privilege in their affluent worlds but then to justify their privilege by mouthing PC cliches about 'inclusion' when, in fact, their lived worlds are exclusive. It's always amusing to listen to people at elitist universities yammer about 'inclusion'. If they want real inclusion, they should call for Open Admissions at places like Harvard and Yale.
Liu has no agency. She is an imitator. She has no real identity as an Asian either. She seeks approval by imitating whites. Even though she is not white, she wants to take on 'white guilt'. Since privileged whites demonstrate their supposed goodness by making anti-white noises, Liu does the same by 'white-izing' the yellows. She says yellows shouldn't succeed too much because that would be 'too white' and distance yellows from blacks and latinos. (But if Liu really wants to be with People of Color, why doesn't she just quit her position at overwhelmingly white Swathmore and go live in Detroit or black side of Baltimore? She can raise her kids by sending them to black schools. No one is stopping her. But notice her shtick is mostly symbolic. She makes all the PC-sounding noises but remains in the privileged white world of Swarthmore. She 'over-achieved' and got herself a nice job as professor, but she tells OTHER yellows not to succeed. What a phony. LOL. If she wants to practice what she preaches, she should give her job to a black person and move to Detroit. Somehow, I don't think she's going to do any such.)
David Cole writes:
Remember that whole “tiger mom” thing? Fiercely demanding Asian-American parents who ruthlessly push their kids to achieve the highest levels of academic excellence? Well, Chinese-American educator Roseann Liu is the opposite of that. I’d call her a possum mom, in that the possum, when confronted by a larger animal that appears potentially dangerous, will basically just surrender. Give up. Play dead.
I would have to disagree with Cole to some degree. Tiger Mom Thing isn't really Asian. It's common among certain Asian immigrant parents, but it's not consciously Asian or related to Asian Identity. After all, the most famous Tiger Mom, Amy Chua, rejected Chinese men(presumably as inferior sexually) and married some Jewish guy(who looks more Aryan than Semitic). Chua used her all pressure-cooker tactics to raise Jewish girls than Chinese girls. (The couple agreed the girls would grow up with Jewish identity, albeit with some knowledge of Mandarin.) So, Tiger Momming is not about defending or preserving Asian identity. It is about using Asian obsession for status and social approval to make it in the West.
I would have to disagree with Cole to some degree. Tiger Mom Thing isn't really Asian. It's common among certain Asian immigrant parents, but it's not consciously Asian or related to Asian Identity. After all, the most famous Tiger Mom, Amy Chua, rejected Chinese men(presumably as inferior sexually) and married some Jewish guy(who looks more Aryan than Semitic). Chua used her all pressure-cooker tactics to raise Jewish girls than Chinese girls. (The couple agreed the girls would grow up with Jewish identity, albeit with some knowledge of Mandarin.) So, Tiger Momming is not about defending or preserving Asian identity. It is about using Asian obsession for status and social approval to make it in the West.
In a way, Rosann Liu's shtick is part of Tiger-Mom-mindset. As a yellow woman with servile and submissive personality, she has no pride, autonomy, or agency as an Asian. She believes Asians exist to serve OTHER people and win their approval. Apparently, Asians don't have independent value. Asians have value only in SERVING other peoples.
This is very much part of Asian mentality and personality. In Asia, the role of most people has been to SERVE. To serve the master, to serve the lord, the serve the teacher, to serve the parent, to serve the official, to serve the rich man, etc. So, when yellows come to the West, they have no sense of independence. In North Korea, the masses are servile to the Kim family. In Mao's China, Chinese were minions who served him as new emperor. In feudal Japan, samurai served their lords. This habit lingers in the West where Asians have no sense of what or who they are. They merely seek out new masters to serve.
According to Western PC, three groups have special grace: Jews, blacks, and homos. White people used to have prestige. They used to feel pride as the conquerors, settlers, creators, and builders of a New Nation of freedom, liberty, and prosperity. When Anglo-Americans held the power, they pushed the Narrative that boosted their glory and greatness. But Jews took power as the new elites. Once they became the supreme power-holders of America, they needed to make white people serve Jews. And they did this by promoting White Guilt. Jews emphasized the violence done by whites in the creation of the US. (Of course, Jews underplayed their own role in American Imperialism. Jews covered up their role in the slave trade. Jews de-emphasized how Jewish merchants sold guns to whites in the West to shoot Indians with. And Jews suppressed the connection between imperialism and immigration. Jews hail immigration as some great thing, but in the 19th century, more white and Jewish immigrants meant less land for Indians and their eventual extinction from their homelands... just like Jewish-Zionist immigration to Palestine led to the Nakba Pogroms that led to massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians who now live under Apartheid conditions in West Bank. Jews would also prefer that we not remember that the Jews were the main sellers of opium to the Chinese, destroying countless lives.) 'White Guilt' is really a political strategy. It isn't real morality. Also, it is selective and morally unprincipled. For one thing, those who make the most noise about 'white guilt' tend to be the most privileged whites. It's the whites with most money and high positions in government & corporations who make the most stink about 'equality'. It is a dirty game. They are merely justifying THEIR OWN privilege by attacking other white people, especially those without privilege or affluence. Indeed, one of the ugliest things about America is the sight of all these affluent whites with high positions, homes in nice neighborhoods, and privileged connections berating whites with no money and lowly jobs as 'racist' and 'deplorable'. The 'good whites' can afford to live apart from black crime and problems of Diversity. They rub shoulders with only fancy blacks who, via affirmative action, got to attend nice schools and were shoehorned into nice jobs. In contrast, poor whites have to deal with problems of crime and globalism(where their jobs were shipped overseas or their labor comes under competition from Third World immigrants). They have no privilege, but they are the 'bad whites' because their attitudes aren't properly PC. In contrast, the Good Whites have all the privilege, but it's justified symbolically because they make all the proper-sounding noises about 'inclusion' even though their lived world is actually highly selective and exclusive.
'White Guilt' is also bogus because the object of white guilt is never morally consistent or principled. After all, if Good Whites are really into White Guilt, where is all the white guilt about the destruction of Muslim nations at the behest of Neocons and Zionists? Clinton, Bush, and Obama have pushed sanctions and wars that led to the deaths of 100,000s, if not millions, of Muslims and Arabs. By one estimate, 500,000 Iraqi kids were killed by policies of Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright.
Bush's team of Neocons cooked up lies about WMD to invade and destroy Iraq, unleashing a civil war that led to deaths of 100,000s. Obama, at the behest of his Jewish overlords, destroyed Libya. Once the only Wakanda-like nation in Africa, it is now in rubbles and even has a slave market. Obama and Hillary, again at the behest of Zionists, worked with Saudis to send terrorists into Syria. Ensuing war led to deaths of 500,000. And US, under Obama and now Trump, has been aiding and abetting in the Saudi genocidal war on Yemen.
And of course, 2018 is the 70th anniversary of the Nakba pogroms that led to the ethnic cleansing of an entire people. Given all these horrors, why is there no White Guilt about what has been done to the Middle East? If Good White Liberals are indeed so very good and so into 'white guilt', why aren't they on their knees apologizing to what the US has done to the lives of countless Arabs and Muslims? So much for the nobility of 'white guilt'. White Guilt is a tool, a ploy. It is used by Jewish Supremacists to manipulate white emotions to serve Jewish interests. So, white guilt applies to the Shoah(the Holocaust) but not to Nakba or Zionist War on Muslims. There used to be some White Guilt about the Vietnam War, but that is no more because Jews need the US to fight more Wars for Israel. How many so-called Progressives condemned Obama's wars on Libya and Syria? How many sounded the alarm about Obama regime's support of Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine to bring down the perceived pro-Russian government.
Even the WWII Narrative is used cynically. We are supposed to feel so very sorry for Jews who were killed by Germans but feel nothing for the Russians even though it's been estimated that over 20 million Russians perished in WWII. Why no sympathy for Russians? Because Jews hate Russia. In the 1990s, Jews economically looted Russia and grabbed just about everything. But Putin restored some measure of sovereignty and took back his nation from Jewish globalists, and Jews have been seething with rage and hatred ever since. Even though Jews are less than 1% of Russia, they think they have the right to own and rule that country... like they rule the US. In the US, Jews are 2% of the population, but they control 90% of media, over 50% of Wall Street, most of the top high-tech firms, most top law-firms, most of Las Vegas, all of Hollywood, the Ivy Leagues, and etc. Jews make so much noise about 'white privilege', but it's a smokescreen to distract people from the fact that the biggest privilege and power in the US is Jewish, Jewish, and Jewish. Jews are so powerful that they force all of us to serve the ongoing Zionist tyranny and mass murder of Palestinians(who are treated worse than how the Chinese treat Uighurs and Tibetans). So, when it comes to the issue of 'white guilt', it's mostly bogus. It's highly selective and manipulated by the Powers-that-be to serve their own agenda. Jews have the Power, and they manipulate White Guilt to make whites support Jewish tyranny over Palestinians. According to the Jewish Narrative, whites must feel forever-guilt for the Holocaust, and therefore, whites must serve Jewish interests in destroying any Arab or Muslim nation to secure Zionist hegemony in the Middle East. In other words, there can never be any White Guilt about evils done to Arabs and Muslims since Jews have programmed White Guilt to fixate ONLY on what-whites-owe-to-Jews. Oddly enough, this 'white guilt' applies not only to Germans of WWII generation but for all time. Worse, it applies even to whites who fought and destroyed Nazism. UK, US, and Russia were white nations that fought to defeat Nazi Germany. But whites in those nations must also share in the 'guilt'. Instead of Jews showing gratitude to those peoples, the latter must suck up to Jews for all times. Of course, there is no mention of the fact that the bulk of the Bolshevik leaders were Jewish, and they carried out the first mass-murders(of mostly Slavic Christians) BEFORE the Nazis consolidated their power to wage wars and carry out horrors.
But Liu is too much of a silly yellow puppy to understand any of this. She surely grew up as a teacher's pet. Her parents told her to respect teachers, study hard in school, obey, and go along. So, she got good grades and attended good schools and got a job as professor in some nice university. Also, being an obedient yellow pet, she swallowed all the PC stuff about who is or isn't holy. And notices she bashes yellow privilege while saying nothing of the real privilege and power that rules the West: Jewish Power.
Still, I think David Cole is wrong to argue that Liu is really an anti-Tiger-Mom or that she is really sincere in her argument. After all, she must know that NO serious Asian-American is going to take her advice and willfully fail in school. Besides, Liu herself succeeded academically and landed a good job as professor at a respected university. What is the chance that she will give up her job and move to Detroit? What are the chances that she will sabotage the academic and job prospects of her own children just to be more PC? No, her argument is nothing but virtue-signaling. It is a shtick, not unlike what Good Whites pull off all the time. Privileged whites make symbolic gestures about 'diversity' and 'inclusion', but they do everything to live in nice communities, send their kids to exclusive schools, and increase their wealth. Look at San Fran tech elites. They make the 'most progressive' sounds but amass the most fortunes and live in the richest neighborhoods that price out everyone else. Look at Harvard, one of the most exclusive universities. People wanna attend that school to gain power and privilege but cover up this fact with all their cliched slogans about 'inclusion' and 'diversity'. And Jews are the worst hypocrites. They make sure they control most of the elite institutions and that their kind is vastly and disproportionately represented in all the prestigious fields but they make the most noise about how 'unfair' our society is due to 'white privilege'. In fact, at Harvard, Jews outnumber white gentiles. Indeed, the reason why Jews love to invoke 'white privilege' is because so much of it is actually Jewish. By calling it 'white', Jews can blame white gentiles for the power and privilege that is held by Jews. So, if someone says 'Hollywood is too white', it gives the false impression that white Christians hog Hollywood when it is totally controlled by Jewish sleazebags.
Anyway, Liu's anti-Asian bashing mustn't be taken seriously. She is just imitating privileged Good Whites who make symbolic gestures while securing affluence and high positions for themselves. Liu is doing the same for Asians. She is telling them that they should create an appearance of caring about Diversity while silently going about succeeding in academia. She is a phony like most of her kind.
Now, it's understandable why white people(at least white gentiles) need to attach themselves to OTHER groups to feel justified. In the past, white people took pride as great conquerors, inventors, thinkers, artists, scientists, discoverers, adventurers, and settlers. But Jews took over the Narrative and emphasized white evils such as genocide and slavery. Granted, other peoples had practiced slavery and committed genocide all throughout history, but it seemed worse that white people did it because they had such high opinion of themselves. After all, slavery in Africa, Muslim World, or Asia was just business-as-usual. But as the West experienced the Enlightenment, white people began to see themselves as extra-moral and extra-rational and extra-ethical. After all, the US was founded on Enlightenment principles. And that is why white evils came to seem worse. And Jews exploited this to create the cult of White Guilt.
Paradoxically, White Guilt is predicated on White Supremacism, i.e. whites feel especially guilty because they have a higher opinion of themselves. Whites think, "WE should have known better since we are a more advanced and more evolved people." So, if blacks committed slavery in Africa or Asians committed genocide in Asia, that was a matter of "they didn't know any better". But whites, being 'more evolved', should have known better.
Anyway, instilled with White Guilt, whites could no longer take pride in their own identity. They could only feel justified by latching onto OTHERS. Jews wanted it this way because, as the New Supremacists, they wanted whites to support the Holy Jews in their power-grab. So, whites felt morally compelled to support Zionist destruction of Palestine. And whites felt compelled to wage Wars for Israel following the end of the Cold War. Also, whites sanction Iran because Jews hate it as a rival power in the Middle East. And white Americans support Jewish War on Russia even though Jews economically raped Russia in the 90s.
Anything for the Jews, the Holy Holocaust People. So many Arab and Muslim nations were destroyed. Again, the cult of white guilt is NOT consistent. It is about white guilt about ALL non-whites. Jews don't want it this way. After all, if whites felt white guilt for Palestinians and Arabs, they would stop with the Wars for Israel and stop sending billions to Israel so that Zionists can keep mass-murdering Palestinians and enforcing Apartheid in the West Bank, which is on the brink of being annexed by the Judeo-Nazi state of Israel. White Guilt must favor Jews over Arabs, Muslims, and Iranians in order for white Americans to continue supporting Jewish supremacist strategies all over the world. White people don't get to control white guilt. Jews do. White people don't get to decide whom to feel guilty for. Jews decide to ensure that whites will continue to serve Jewish supremacism. This is why Jews are using their power to shut down BDS. This is a movement that says white Americans must atone for their support of murderous Zionist imperialism against Palestinians. And some white people have woken up and spoken up for Palestinians, a people terribly wronged by US imperialism. Jews fear this and use their whore politicians to criminalize BDS and destroy any business that complies with it.
Imagine if a Boer Community in the US had sought to criminalize any sanctions against Apartheid South Africa in the 1980s. That is what Jews are doing with BDS, but most academics and journalists are totally silent about it. Why? One reason is fear of Jewish power that can destroy just about anyone. Another reason is that Jews molded White Guilt to favor Jews as the main objects of white sympathy. White compassion for Jews as Holy Holocaust People blinds them to the plight of the victims of Jews. Whites have been led to see Jews as an eternal race of Anne Franks that they are blind to the fact that Jews are now the ruling elites that use American Power to destroy countless peoples around the world to secure and expand Jewish-Zionist Imperialism and Hegemony. I highly doubt if Rosann Liu or her associates ever said whites and Asians must unite to stand with Palestinians and other victims of World Jewry. Palestinians are gunned down by Zionist death squads in Gaza. Iranians suffer economic sanctions for its non-existent nuclear program. In contrast, Israel that snubs all international laws, stole uranium from the US, and has 300 nuclear warheads(and even shared nuke secrets with Apartheid South Africa in the 80s) is showered with $4.5 billion in 'aid' every year. Where is justice in this? There is only silence from Liu and her associates who have no agency when it comes to real conscience and right-and-wrong.
Now, Liu says Asians should stick with blacks and Latinos, but why Latinos? What is a Latino, or is it Latinx these days? (Does that mean Chinese are now chinx?) Whereas we have a pretty good idea of what a black person is, a Latino could be just about anyone. It could be a white person, a descendant of the Spanish Conquistadors who invaded, raped, and genocided South America and Central America. Why should such people be seen as 'victims'? They arrived in the New World prior to the Anglos. They spread disease and wiped out 90% of the native population. They raped tons of native women and created the mestizo. That is the history of race-mixing in the New World. Mass rape of native women by white men, just like race-mixing in South Vietnam was about white men and black men using native yellow women as prostitutes, the #1 economy of that country under US occupation. As if Spanish invasion of the natives wasn't bad enough in the New World, they brought over millions of blacks as slaves. Portuguese, especially Portuguese Jews, in Brazil brought over the most number of slaves: 3 million, ten times the number in the US. Diversity is imperialism, imperialism is diversity. Diversity in the New World is the result of conquest, genocide, rape, and slavery. Diversity was forced upon the natives of the New World by European conquerors who furthered the diversity by shipping millions of black slaves to the New World. And yet, we are supposed to glorify diversity, the product of imperialism. But then, we are told to glorify mass immigration in the 19th century in the US even though it was part of imperialism and genocide. The more immigrants came, the more American Indians were pushed off their lands and forced into reservations. Whites and Jews arrived to move westward to drive out the Indians. Chinese put down railroads that furthered westward expansion that wiped out yet more Indians.
Now, one may ask why Slavery is a bigger moral issue in the US than genocide? Isn't genocide worse than slavery? Blacks were slaves but still allowed to breed and have families. They went from 300,000 to 45 million people. In contrast, American Indians were reduced from 10 million to less than million by turn of the 20th century. Their lands were taken, and they were thrown into reservations. And yet, we are told 'slavery' is the original sin of America. Not genocide of the Indians. Why? It's because Jews find the slavery issue useful in guilt-baiting whites. In contrast, it would be inconvenient for Jews for people to associate immigration = genocide of Indians since Jews benefited so much from mass immigration to the US. It's like Jews downplay the Nakba pogroms of 1948 since it was good for their kind. It led to the creation of Israel. As for Palestinians who were reduced to wretched huddled masses(like Indians in reservations), who cares?
But there is another reason why white guilt obsesses more about blacks than Indians. Over the years, blacks have demonstrated their entertainment value as singers, dancers, orators, sex symbols, and athletes. In contrast, white people find Indians to be mediocre, boring, dull, and drab. American Indians aren't known for singing, dancing, humping, and jumping. In celebrity-obsessed America, the racial/ethnic group with the most idolatrous value get the most love and respect. Because blacks are associated with loud/strong voices, athleticism, bouncy booties, and bigger penises, they are admired as the naturally superior race by whites. White boys and girls worship black rappers and black athletes. White girls are into jungle fever and seek out muscled black men with bigger penises. White boys are happy to cuck out and invite black men to hump their wives.
Whites have a certain neurosis about blacks. On the one hand, blacks are seen as inferior creatures in need of compassion. Blacks are seen as a victim group that needs the love and sympathy of white folks. It's the white man's burden to take care of blacks who need to be taken care of due to backwardness or slavery. But another side of white consciousness sees blacks as the superior race. Because blacks holler loud and commandingly, dominate sports(that defines manhood in the US), beat up other races, and are known for ass-shaking(twerking) and bigger penises, whites feel that blacks are innately the superior race. And this is why whites feel special guilt for blacks. Whites now feel that they enslaved and wronged a superior race. Whites don't feel this way about Chinese railroad workers or the Vietnamese. Sure, the Chinese workers were treated terribly and the US killed over 2 million in Vietnam(and one million in Philippines in the early 20th century). Even though whites are not proud of those things, they feel no special guilt because they don't see Asians as a superior race. If anything, they see Asians as the innately inferior race. On the visceral level, whites see blacks as bigger, tougher, stronger, more commanding, and more manly. Blacks are seen as the Penis. In contrast, whites see Asians as smaller, weaker, more timid, and less manly. Because Asians lack masculine value, they are seen as the Vagina. So, Asia is the vagina that exists to be colonized by whites and blacks, as happened in Vietnam. Black men are seen as having excess manhood. Asian men are seen as effete wussies. So, while black manhood has value, Asian manhood has no value. Only Asian women have value as vaginas to be colonized by superior white and black penises. And Asian women agree with this, which is why majority of Asian women in the US go with non-Asian men.
Even though we like to see ourselves as rational creatures, so much of how we see the world is shaped and determined by visceral factors. Before we think, we feel, and this feelings come from sensations. Why do people feel more sad over a dead lion than over a dead hyena? Because lions are seen as bigger and stronger and nobler(even though they really aren't in their actual behavior). Why do people feel sorry for elephants and whales but not for pigs even though pigs are smarter than dogs and emotionally complex? Because pigs are seen as ugly. Also, our love of pork blinds us to the horrors that are necessary to create pork.
Consider Nike ads. Nike shoes are made by Asian modern slave-labor. 100,000s of workers toil away for a pittance to churn out those shoes. They work from morning to night. But when Nike runs ads, there is no mention of the actual people who made those shoes. Instead, ads feature black athletes as the demigods of manhood. So, the impression is that blacks are the superior race to be worshiped on the altar of celebrity while Asians are a race of Nibelungen who should work in assembly lines as gnomes to make shoes to be worn by people who worship blacks. Indeed, look at China itself. It is the manufacturing hub of the world. Countless people enter factories and work all day for small pay to make products that advertise ANOTHER people. Chinese semi-slave labor makes the products, but the products are advertised with black faces because blacks have idolatrous value as athletes, singers, dancers.
In contrast, Asians have weak voices. They can't compete in sports at the global level. And they are short, and women all over the world(even Asian women) feel contempt for Asian men as geeky, ugly, and appendaged with smaller penises. Even Asian fathers in America want their daughters to marry a white man to have pretty kids. Asian parents find Asians to be ugly and 'chinky'.
Now, such considerations shouldn't determine morality or right-or-wrong on the rational level. But humans are visceral as well as rational creatures. If one guy can lift 200 lbs and if another guy can lift 300 lbs, no one would say that the latter is better and deserves more moral consideration. Why should one's physical strength determine one's value? From a rational POV, that makes no sense. But from a visceral POV, we FEEL that the stronger man deserves more respect. Kids get this from a young age, as their main heroes are athletes and superheroes. Women are like this too. They gravitate toward power. When Nazis invaded France, so many French women ran into the arms of victorious German men. When blacks beat up whites in sports and schools, so many white women began to see white guys as losers and went with black men. When US dominated Japan and South Vietnam, so many Asian women offered themselves sexually to American men(as the victors). This explains why there is more 'sympathy' for blacks than for other races. It's not about slavery. It's due to black victory in idolatrous fields like sports, pop music, and sex culture.
In contrast, there is little interest in browns in South America because they aren't very idolatrous in anything. The fate of indigenous peoples of Latin America is the most tragic in the world. Even though all the world came under the power of Western Imperialism, most peoples got their lands back. Blacks got Africa back, Arabs got Arabia back, Asians got Asia back, and etc. But the natives of the Americas were permanently invaded and conquered by whites. To this say, Latin America is mostly ruled by white Latino elites. Also, mass rape and race-mixing made it nearly impossible for the natives to regain the land by ousting the invaders. Too many people in Mexico and other such nations are mixed in race: white and brown. As such, they neither identify with whites nor with indigenous peoples. They are forever stuck in a confused limbo identity. Also, no people suffered mass deaths on the scale of the natives of the Americas. By most estimates, it's said 50 to 55 million of the original 60 million natives were wiped out by diseases spread by the Latino invaders. The survivors were raped and then enslaved to toil under white Latino elites. (This is the History of Diversity that we are supposed to celebrate.)
And yet, there is hardly any sympathy for such people. Why? Because they don't excel in sports, pop music, and sex culture as blacks do. Instead, we have even white 'progressives' say stuff like, "We need those brown people to change diapers, pick tomatoes, mow lawns, and do the dirty work Americans won't do." No one in this day and age would say stuff like, "We need blacks to pick cotton, pick watermelon, and cook us fried chicken." And yet, it's perfectly okay to speak of browns as a race of helots who exist to serve Americans who won't do dirty work. Why is this? Haven't brown indigenous people in Latin America suffered horribly? Yes. But there is no special sympathy for them because they are seen as short, mediocre, unathletic losers. In contrast, blacks are now seen as the superior race because they are so successful in celebrity-heavy fields of pop culture and sports. Irrational but people are irrational. People feel more sympathy for what is deemed superior. If I kill a hyena and a lion, people will feel more sympathy for the lion. When white people think of brown slaves working in haciendas, they think, "them browns aren't capable of anything other than dull menial labor", and so, there is less guilt. But when whites think of black slaves picking cotton, they think, "how unjust for a race of Muhammad Alis, Rihannas, Jay-Z's, and Aretha Franklin to be forced to do something so demeaning."
This dichotomy also applies to Jews and Ukrainians. In the Holodomor, Stalin and Jewish Bolsheviks carried out a mass murder by starvation of millions of Slavic Christians. It was the holocaust before the Holocaust. So, why do we care more for dead Jews than for dead Ukrainians? One reason is surely that Jews control the media and academia and put more emphasis on the Holocaust than on Holodomor. But another reason is Jews have iconic value as great thinkers, scientists, doctors, inventors, and scholars. In contrast, Ukrainians are remembered as mostly uneducated cossacks and the like. Now, we would like to believe that all lives have equal value. On the rational level, we may tell ourselves such, but on the visceral level we feel more tragic about Jewish deaths because they are seen as a Great People whereas Ukrainians are seen as a race of blockheads. This also applies to Palestinians. The reason why so many Americans, even Liberals, have sided with Zionists against Palestinians is because they admire Jews are artists, comics, thinkers, writers, businessmen, innovators, and etc. In contrast, they think of Arabs as just a bunch of mediocrities. So, even though Zionists clearly wronged the Palestinians, they get more respect and sympathy because they are seen as a Great People with superior wit, wisdom, and wealth. Visceral factors matter in how we see humanity and the world.
This is why Jews and blacks have a special place in the victim sweepstakes. It's not because they suffered more than other peoples. It's because they are seen as Superior peoples. As superior peoples, their suffering is seen as more tragic. If Albert Einstein and a middle school teacher were killed, which would seem more tragic? Einstein's death because he was a genius. Now, we could argue that all lives are equally precious, and that both deaths are equally tragic, but we don't really FEEL that way despite our egalitarian ethos. Why did Aretha Franklin's death get such coverage? She was hailed as a great singer. Now, does having a powerful voice make one a better person? Rationally, we say NO, but viscerally, a part of us says Yes. Why is there so much worship of athletes? The ONLY thing that athletes proved is they can run faster, punch harder, or jump higher. That doesn't make a person better. And yet, we see such people as 'heroes' because the visceral-animal part of us still admires the alpha hunter-warrior. And this explains why blacks and Jews are especially arrogant. Blacks feel as the superior race because they have louder voices and win in sports. As 'heroes', they feel deserving of all the prizes, blings, and accolades.
And Jews, feeling that they are smarter and wittier, believe that they should dominate the world via media power, financial power, and US military power(that they control) because most US politicians are whores of AIPAC. Of course, blacks are not superior in everything. Generally, they are inferior in intellect, just like Jews are inferior in athletics. It's been said a Jew is more likely to own a sports team than play in one. In contrast, blacks dominate in the sporting fields but generally don't have the business know-how to organize and manage mega-operations. This is why Africa depends on China to build everything. Africans give Chinese raw materials, and Chinese build stuff for Africans. In Kenya, business is dominated by Asian-Indians, and Kenyan politicians depend on donations from business-savvy Hindus. Blacks need affirmative action to enter elite colleges. Evolution made blacks tougher and more muscular. And it made them funky in the ass and bigger in penis. So, they have advantages in sports, pop music, and sex. But they lag in intellect, which is why most of them even in elite colleges specialize in social sciences than the far more demanding hard sciences.
In contrast, Jews have the highest average IQ. They are 2% of US population but own close to 50% of all the wealth. They fear gentiles speaking truth to Jewish Power, so they push the cult of White Privilege to distract people from the extent of Jewish Power. No race or group is superior in everything, but because blacks dominate in idolatrous brawn and Jews dominate in iconic brains, they believe they should be revered and served by other peoples. Blacks think, 'We be cool, we be badass, so everyone should kiss our ass'. Jews think, 'We are so smart, we can run circles around all those stupid goyim. They need to serve us.' This explains the political alliance between Jews and blacks, but it's an uneasy alliance because black and Jewish advantages are so at odds. Jewish sports owners rely on black athletes, but many black athletes feel that Jewish plantation owners treat them as slaves. And Jews feel that blacks have been ungrateful and 'antisemitic', especially with black admiration for Louis Farrakhan who loves to point out that Jews have been milking blacks all along. Blacks envy and resent Jewish brains and ability in business and management. Jews envy and resent black prowess in physical dominance, especially because so many Jewish women now have jungle fever and go with black men, which means Jewish men must seek out Asian women for mates(because Asian men are even wimpier and less manly than Jewish men). Jewish men lose out to tougher black men sexually, but they can take Asian women from Asian men who have the lowest sexual value in the US.
Anyway, returning to the issue of 'Latino', it's a misleading and misguided term that needs to be put to rest. Why should everyone in Latin America be called 'Latino' or 'Hispanic'? If the reason is they all speak Spanish, then why isn't everyone who speaks English called 'Anglo' in the US? Since American Indians and blacks speak English in the US, shouldn't they be called Anglo? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Then, why are blacks and indigenous non-whites in Latin America called 'latino' or 'Hispanic' simply because they speak Spanish? An indigenous brown native of Latin America is no more Latino than an American Indian is Anglo. A black of slave ancestry in Latin America is no more Latino or Hispanic than a black American is Anglo. Latino or Hispanic should apply ONLY to whites of Spanish/Portuguese ancestry in Latin America. These people do NOT deserve any historical victim points. They are the ones who conquered the Americas(long before the Anglos), spread diseases that wiped out 50 million people, raped the natives, and brought over millions of black Africans. There is nothing more disgusting than whites of Hispanic descent pretending to be 'people of color'. Also, the so-called race-mixing in Latin America was not some glorious event in history. It was the result of RAPE. White men raped brown women to create the mestizo, just like most of the race-mixing in South Vietnam happened under US imperialism. US soldiers with the guns and bombs turned South Vietnam into a whore house and used yellow women as a bunch of cheap pussies. Most of race-mixing throughout history has been one of domination and rape. When Mongols invaded Russia, they raped many. That was race-mixing.
Even today, most race-mixing is about domination. Why is it that most white-black mixing is about black males and white females? It's because white women with jungle fever see black men as the superior stud and reject white men as 'wussy white boys'. Why do Asian women reject Asian men and go with white or black men? It's because, by globalist standards, Asian men are seen as short, weak, and scrawny. In Old Asia, Asian women only had Asian men to choose from. Under globalism. Asian women can choose any man, and they prefer white and black men to inferior Asian men. This is why most Eurasian kids are the product of white father and yellow mother. This is why nearly all 'Blasians' are the result of black fathers and yellow mothers. Asian women have value as the submissive vagina, but Asian men have no value as the penis because their penis is generally smaller than those of white men and black men. So, despite all the PC cliches about wonders of 'diversity' and 'race-mixing', the fact is diversity is the result of imperialism, and race-mixing is about sexual dominance of black over white and of black/white over yellow. Between Africa and Europe, Africa is the penis and Europe is the vagina. Between Africa/Europe and Asia, Africa/Europe is the penis and Asia is the vagina. It's interesting that white men go to Asia for sex tourism. Why? They see Asia as submissive vagina. In contrast, white women go to Africa or Cuba for sex tourism. Why? They got jungle fever and admire Africa as the dominant penis. Look at Japan. Its half-black athletes who are dominating sports are the product of black penis and yellow vagina. In almost every case, it's black man and yellow woman. Why? Because yellow women reject yellow men as inferior and prefer black men as superior. Indeed, 50% of Japanese men now lack confidence and remain virgins while white and black men increasingly mate with yellow Japanese women who despise their own yellow men as inferior. It's the Saigonization of Japan. Just like American men dominated and owned yellow women in South Vietnam, Japanese wombs are now being colonized by white and black seeds. Meanwhile, half of Japanese men will die sexless, without mates, and without pride.
Perhaps, this is why so many Asian-American men are obsessed with academic success. It's their ONLY ticket to success. Since they have no value in the manhood department, they must do well in school and land a good job to have any chance of getting mates. A black guy can just flex his muscles and pull out his dong to get a lot of pussy. A white guy loses out to blacks, but he can gain over Asian guys because he is generally taller and manlier than yellow geeks. But Asian men are despised by all women in the US, including Asian women, the majority of whom go with non-Asian men. An average Asian man in America is like that dork in FARGO.
That may explain why Asian-American men are so obsessed with academics. They have no value in the coolness department. And even when they try to be cool, they have nothing of their own and lamely try to imitate black rappers when, in fact, no one cares about yellow rappers or homeys. The fact is black and white guys can get women even without making it. In contrast, Asian guys have so low value in the sexual marketplace that they must make lots of money to attract any mate. Women like manly men, but they will put out those with money. After all, some bimbos even marry old crusty men. Why? Those men are rich.
In this sense, Asian success isn't really success at all. It is a desperate attempt to stave off failure as the most uncool race in the US. Blacks have idolatrous value as athletes and performers. Jews have value as wits and comics. Whites lose in manhood department to blacks, but they win over other races. Also, white beauty is much prized. Black women want white-ish hair than nappy Afros. And Asian women get plastic surgery to look white. So, whites have cultural value too. But Asians have no cultural value. The general view is they can't sing, dance, and do sports, the things Americans are obsessed about. Also, Asian men are seen as geeks than studs. The only cultural value that Asians have is 'me so horny' image of Asian slut as easy pussy for white and black men. But that is an anti-value because it's not about Asian domination but Asian female submission to the men of superior races(globalism = total devaluing of Asian manhood into a joke).
Granted, it's not just Asian men who study hard. Asian women do so too. Rosann Liu apparently went to the best school and got a gig at a prestigious university, which is why it's so hypocritical for her to be yapping about how it's wrong for Asians to succeed in academics. Such obsession with studying could be seen as part of Confucian legacy of respect for learning. Confucius, the central philosopher of Sinosphere(that includes China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam), stressed learning as a virtue. So, if Asians revere learning, knowledge, and wisdom, that's not a bad thing. But the dark side of Confucianism was that, over time, the people of East Asian became less concerned with truth and wisdom than with status and privilege. As education and examination became the surest pathway to respectability and prestige, they were seen as instruments of social climbing than search for truth. And we can see this in Rosann Liu as well. She doesn't seem to have entertained a single original idea in her mind. Everything she spouts is what she wrote down in her classes dominated by PC. Surely, she got her job at Swarthmore because she has all the correct opinions fed to her by her PC teachers. She's a teacher's pet. She gained social status by toeing the party line.
PC says blacks have autonomous value whereas Asians don't. So, Asians must attach themselves to others to gain 'goody-good' points. Blacks are holy and noble just by serving their own interests. But Asians have no value by serving their own interests. They must serve ANOTHER people who are deemed especially holy. In Liu's case, it's blacks. Or maybe she just has jungle fever and a thing for blacks.
Also, it's wrong to say Asians are successful and blacks are not. It depends in what department. In academics, Asians are many times more successful than blacks who depend on affirmative action to get a leg up in elite colleges. (By the way, the Asian legal challenge to Harvard and Ivies is not so much about yellows vs blacks. It's about yellows vs Jews. Jews control Ivy Leagues and rigged it so that a certain percentage of Jews will always be assured EVEN WHEN Asians outperform them in academics. While Jews are a smart people, they are seriously over-represented in Ivy League, and this is the result of rigging by Jewish Power. Also, white gentiles, not Asians, are the most discriminated and underrepresented people in the Ivies. Again, Jews rigged it so that their kind would grab more than half of white slots in the Ivies.) http://www.unz.com/
Anyway, yellows and blacks are both failures and success in different respects. Yellows have done well in academics and middle-level jobs, but they have failed in sports, pop culture, and sexual value. (Asian women have high sexual value but only as easy pussy for non-Asian men. So, Asian wombs serve to produce children for white men and black men. It's sexual colonization, much like Spanish colonization of native wombs in Latin America.) Because yellows have such low idolatrous value, most Americans resent their success in academics and professions. Whites, blacks, and browns wonder, "Look at those scrawny and puny geeks taking all those slots and positions from us." People want to be led by men of charisma and vitality. Most Americans see Asians as all-geeky-brains but no soul, no color, no virility. So, in some ways, Asians are a huge failure in the US. Also, they have the lowest birthrates and highest suicide rates in the US. Asian men are least likely to find mates and have families. Asian women, due to their pickiness and elitism, are most likely to be unmarried and not have kids.
If Liu really wants to de-emphasize Asian obsession for education, it should be on the basis of humanism. A kind of universal elitism is killing both Asian-America and Asia itself. Asians are so obsessed with status and privilege that they see life in terms of success or bust. There is nothing in between. In the past, only a handful of Asians went to college. Most had to make do with reality. Also, as women were less educated than the men, they were happy to settle down with some guy and form a family. Today, there is nearly universal college education among Asians, and so they all want the best kind of jobs. Anything less is intolerable, something to be ashamed about and even reason for suicide, which is so high in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Also, as women are now as well-educated as the men, they too seek out only the best kind of men. If they can't find the ideal, they choose to remain single or move to the West and go with whites or blacks. As such, yellow societies are dying in both Asia and the West. This is not a the story of health or success.
In contrast, Mexican-Americans succeed less academically and economically. But they have a more easy-going view of life. Not everything has to be the Best. They can settle for the humdrum. Mexican men aren't as status-obsessed as Asian men. And Mexican women will settle down with some average Mexican guy, unlike well-educated status-obsessed Asian women who must seek out the Ideal mate. So, even though Mexicans lose to Asians in academics and fancy professions, they win in the School of Life. Mexicans still have kids and have families and find happiness in simple things. In contrast, Asians, in imitation of sterile and status-obsessed white elites, have become unable to have families and kids. So, people should never mistake Asian academic success as a sign of overall success. If anything, Asian obsession with academics is a sign of a sickness of universal elitism that is toxically anti-humanist. It sees no value in Asian-as-Asian-person. Its only value is as Asian-as-status-seeker-and-
Now, what about blacks? Blacks too are a success and failure. In terms of Image, blacks are a great success. As winners in sports, pop music, and sex cultures, blacks are worshiped as demigods by much of America. White people cheer black athletes as heroes. White women worship black men as superior studs. White boys cuck out to blacks. White boys imitate black rappers. To be associated with blackness is to be associated with all that is cool and badass and noble and spiritual. American students say they respect Harriet Tubman and MLK the most. TV shows promote black males as the new standard of manhood and suggest that white women should reject inferior white dweebs and have black kids with black men. In the UK, the BBC features blacks in white historical roles. Julius Caesar, Lancelot, and Achilles are all presented as blacks. Because blacks dominate current sports and the iconic image of Western manhood, the idea is that great men of the European past must also be made black.
American Indians suffered genocide but they get no such respect in America. Why? They don't dominate pop music and sports. Also, the Western Media favor not only MLK but Mandela as the face of world conscience. (Notice the Jewish-controlled media never gave such treatment to Yasser Arafat, a good friend of Mandela, because Jews don't want the world to sympathize with the plight of Palestinians.) Because of visceral factors, blacks are revered as the superior race in the West. MLK's cult has a lot to do with his voice. He could holler loud, and it sounded like the voice of god to white folks. Now, we can rationally argue that truth shouldn't be measured by vocal volume, but again, people are not all that rational. People do react on the sensory level, and blacks have been able to cast a sorcery-spell on whites because of their more powerful means of expression. (In other words, if whites had enslaved Chinese instead of blacks, there never would have been a Chinese-American MLK since Chinese have weak voices, the kind that never could have cast a spell over whites. The brown peoples of Latin America -- who are Asiatic in origin by the way -- also have weak voices and timid demeanor, and despite centuries of oppression under Latin whites, haven't been able to produce a figure like MLK because they don't have the voice.) There was a time when whites had suppressed black prowess in sports and entertainment. White men feared that blacks would dominate and kick white ass if given an equal chance. And they proved to be right. Today, NBA and NFL are dominated by blacks. There is natural discrimination against non-blacks in sports since they cannot compete with blacks. It's like if we had men and women competing in sports, men would totally dominate. It wouldn't be social discrimination since both sexes would be allowed to compete. But the end-result would be total male domination. Likewise, erasure of social discrimination in sports has led to natural black discrimination against non-blacks. In the sprints, football, and basketball, blacks pretty much dominate everything, and other races shouldn't even bother to compete since blacks have a natural advantage. Racial differences are real, and blacks are superior in muscle power.
But there is also black failure. As evolution maximized blacks for physical prowess, they are lacking in mental abilities vis-a-vis other races. Sure, there are black geniuses just like there are Jewish dummies, but if we were to compare the two groups, Jews kick blacks in brains department, and blacks kick Jews in the brawn department. In the Crown Heights riots, stronger blacks beat the shit out of weaker Jews who needed to be protected by the police. Norman Podhoretz wrote about how he and fellow Jewish kids used to be bullied and beaten up by stronger black kids in NY. As for blacks, they've long complained that clever Jews ripped them off economically. Apparently, Jewish managers and agents exploited tons of black singers and athletes who could sing loud or run fast but weren't very adept at counting money or managing a portfolio.
And so, a Jew is more likely to own a football team than play in one, whereas it's the opposite for blacks. Black abilities may thrill people in sports and pop music(and in the bedroom), but academics isn't about showboating and performance. It's about concentration and deep devotion to learning. Blacks lag in this just like Chinese lag in athletics. Just like tiny Jamaica produces faster runners than all of China(with its 1.4 billion people), small percentage of East Asians easily outperform blacks in academics in the US. But black academic failure isn't only due to lower IQ. It's due to temperament. White people find black loudness, colorfulness, and big personality very entertaining. Rappers are adored and admired. But such attitude is antithetical to education where students must respect teachers, classroom, and the tradition of knowledge. Too many black kids have an attitude like rappers or Muhammad Ali. It's entertaining on TV but disruptive of classroom ethics. In many black schools, teachers are too busy trying to control bad black behavior to get around to teaching. Black kids are howling like Serena Williams, hollering like Muhammad Ali, yapping like rappers, talking shit, and even beating up teachers. Also, as what passes for black role models today are trashy black athletes(many with felony records), rappers(whose message ranges from 'muh dick' to 'muh gun'), and third rate morons like Al Sharpton, they aren't getting much cultural sustenance. Granted, MLK himself was a pretty wild character who liked to have orgies, beat up women, and brag about beating them up and laugh about it.
So, blacks are wildly successful(as celebrities and idols) and sadly disastrous(as students and neighbors). In a way, their success in one sphere spells failure in another. On TV and radio, whites like to hear blacks being wild and crazy and cool and badass. So, blacks feel encouraged to pump up the volume and do the thug thang. But in real life, whites shy away from blacks who act like that and threaten and harm others. It's one thing to listen to some rappers yap about how he's gonna take his gun and blow away another 'nigga'. White people find it cool and awesome. But when blacks actually act like that in reality, whites move away from such neighborhood or use gentrification to relocate troublesome urban blacks to the some other part of the state. So, black failure and black success are interlinked. What is black success on the TV screen is often black failure in real life. White people like to see blacks acting like thugs on the football field. White people are glued to the TV set watching black athletes. But when blacks act like those sporting thugs in schools and streets, whites(and yellows and browns) are appalled and try to move away from troublesome blacks.
In contrast, Asians are quieter and nicer than blacks. This means whites are less resistant to integrating with Asians and sharing the same spaces. But that very quietude among Asians is seen as dull, drab, and boring. Whites see Asians as a nerdy race of drones who are only good for studying like geeks to get 'good jobs'. They don't excite the white imagination like blacks do. Even as white women fear black crime and black violence, they fantasize about sex with exciting badass black men, not with dorky boring yellow boys(who are even rejected by their own yellow women).
Liu says:
“Asian, black and Latino solidarity should come first,”
The problem with this attitude is that the so-called People-of-Color is a social construct. For starters, what is a 'Latino'? In the US, it could be anyone from a white Latino of Conquistador lineage to a mestizo to a pure Indio or a black whose ancestors were brought over by Latino and Jewish slavers(as Latin Jews were heavily involved in the slave trade, especially in Brazil). Also, Latin America, no less than Anglo-America, was created through imperialism, invasion, genocide, and slave trade. Latin American Diversity is the product of warfare, genocide, rape, and slavery. Why Liu the Asian wants to feel solidarity with that historical mess is beyond me. Also, Latin American disaster cannot be blamed on the US or gringo. Yes, the Anglo-Americans took advantage of Latin American weakness, but the Diversity-Disaster of nations like Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, and the rest was the result of Latino Imperialism. Latino whites are NOT historical victims. They were the conquerors. Also, the primary victims, the native Indios, need to hammer out their historical problem with Latin whites, not with American gringos. But Latino Whites pulled off something very clever. Because Latin America became economically and militarily subservient to the more powerful Anglo-America, they remade themselves to be 'people of color' and feigned victimhood at the hands of Yanquis and Gringos. I'm not buying it. Problems in Latin America must be resolved by Latino whites(who are still the ruling elites) and the native Indios, mestizos(mixed race people resulting from white rape of brown), and blacks(who were brought over as slaves). Also, given that Jews played a huge role in Latin American slave trade, it's time Jews were made to answer for that tragedy, along with the fact that Jews were the main peddler of opium to the Chinese. White Americans have no obligation to fix the mess in Latin America that predated US hegemony over the Western hemisphere. Latinos coming to the US and then feigning victimhood is totally bogus. https://www.haaretz.
As for blacks, what do they have in common with East Asians? For most of history, East Asia had more contact with South Asia, Middle East, and Europe than with black Africa. Indeed, the ONLY reason why East Asia came in contact with the black world is because of white discovery and inter-connection of the world. If not for whites, most East Asians would never heard of blacks, and most blacks would still be living in their primitive tribal societies. Whites built the US, whites brought blacks over to work as slaves. And whites let in yellow immigrants to start a new life. And the ONLY reason why yellows flock to nations like US, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada is because Anglo-whites have created the richest and nicest kind of societies. If yellows like Liu wants to stand in solidarity with blacks or Latinos, they should move to Latin America or black Africa. But notice they always want to move to white majority nations built by Anglos and Germanics. Liu is trying to have it both ways. She wants to live in a white-made world. She wants to live in a white majority society. But she wants to virtue-signal as an ally of the 'oppressed'. She wants her yellow privilege at Swarthmore with white people but she also wants to virtue-signal as a noble person-of-color oppressed by whitey. It's so lame and obvious.
Another thing. I doubt if blacks or browns want an alliance with yellows. Why would they? The only interest black and brown men have in yellows is easy-yellow-pussy. Blacks have no interest in Asian culture. For most of them, Asian culture is about ching-chong yao-yao nonsense where people eat dogs and cats. And browns find yellows boring as hell. To most browns, Chinese are just boring 'chino' who have no personality and just chase after status and imitate whites. Indeed, even Liu's anti-white screed is imitation of whites because privileged Good Whites invoke 'evils of white privilege' to virtue-signal and protect their own white privilege: "We deserve our white privilege because we symbolically bash the white privilege of Deplorables who have no privilege."
If Liu spent time with real people, she would understand what is really going on. But she spent all her life in privileged academic settings, and her idea of reality is spouting PC cliches that sound good to her peers. Also, she's acting to stereotype. Asian stereotype is one of submission and conformity. She conforms to PC shibboleths, and she says Asians must deny their own interests TO SERVE other groups, esp blacks and Latinos.
Now, blacks and Latinos don't think that way. Do blacks think, "We must stop dominating sports, pop music, and sex culture because it's leaving yellows and browns in the dust. It's making us seem superior to other races. Also, our success in sports and pop music is making white people favor us over yellows and browns. In the name of solidarity with yellows and browns, we must succeed less in cool and badass things and be less favored by whites in the Celebrity Sweepstakes." No, of course not. Blacks are into 'me, me, me'. Indeed, even as PC rails against stereotypes, it's amazing how racial stereotypes come true. Blacks are confidently self-centered and demand that everything revolve around them. IN contrast, Liu the yellow is submissive and says Asians must play a subordinate role to blacks and others.
Well, I do have one solution to Liu's argument. How about ending Asian immigration to the US? After all, blacks and browns will have more slots and positions open to them IF they don't have to compete with Asian immigrants. If Asians stay in Asia, lots of positions will open up to blacks and browns in California universities. So, how about Liu and her yellow kind go back to Asia? After all, wasn't the 1965 immigration act unfair to blacks? They finally gained equality with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but then the Immigration Act exposed blacks to competition from immigrants from all over the world. Just when blacks were on the verge of getting their piece of the pie, white folks opened the gates to all the world, and American blacks of slave ancestry had to compete with Asians, Hindus, Muslims, Latin Americans, and African immigrants. (It was even worse for the American Indians. It was bad enough that their lands were taken by white immigrants. With immigration from all over the world, they were bound to lose their lands to All the World. Jews and whites never asked American Indians for permission to allow even more Immigration-Invasion.)
So, if Liu is really concerned about competitive pressures Asians exert on blacks, then she should go back to China. She should call for immigration moratorium. She should say US shouldn't have any more immigration until black Americans can succeed in schools and have good jobs. But of course, she isn't saying any such. Her ilk calls for More Immigration that will exert more pressure on blacks. She is just virtue-signaling to sound like she cares when she's really full of shit.
Liu writes:
“Many Asian Americans have greater opportunities today because of the work of black civil rights leaders in dismantling white power structures,” Liu writes. And she proclaims that it’s time for Asian kids to “acknowledge this debt.”Asian-American students who feel cheated by policies that seek to increase the number of black and Latino students at selective schools would do well to remember that the road to their successes and opportunities was paved by black civil rights leaders. Jim Crow laws that sought to maintain white supremacy primarily targeted African Americans, but Asian Americans were also discriminated against and subject to inferior segregated schools.
First off, if black civil rights leaders are to be credited for more equality, why would Asian students have to defer to Latino students who range from Latin whites to Indigenous natives(and even blacks brought over by HISPANIC slavers)? Also, Liu is ignoring reality. The reason why blacks need affirmative action is not because of history. Blacks will always need affirmative action because of biology. As more discoveries are being made about DNA, it's becoming irrefutable that blacks have lower IQ than whites, Asians, and esp Jews. Black lag in academics has nothing to do with history, just like black success in athletics has nothing to do with history. It's biology. Whites did everything to suppress black success in sports. But blacks came to dominate in boxing, basketball, and football. And many top baseball hitters were blacks. And blacks dominated sprinting even when Segregation existed. And Jack Johnson and Joe Louis were champions even when whites enforced laws against racial equality. Why? Because biology favored blacks in sports. So, despite all efforts at discrimination, blacks like Sugar Ray Robinson kicked white butt. Jesse Owens established the fact of black supremacy in sports. Also, because of their natural rhythm and funky muscularity, blacks came to dominate much of pop music. And Jungle Fever spread long before end of Segregation because white women heard during the Jazz Age that black men got bigger dongs. Those are facts.
But blacks have been lagging in academics because they have lower IQ. If blacks can be naturally better at running, fighting, and jumping, why can't they be naturally inferior in logic and reason? Genetic studies are now conclusively demonstrating that IQ differences among races are real. Sure, there are smart blacks and dumb Jews, but there are many more smart Jews than smart blacks, just like there are many more fast blacks than fast Jews.
So, if we are going to have affirmative action, it should be on the basis of truth. Blacks need it because they can't compete on an equal basis. I would argue that TWO groups are deserving of Affirmative Action in the US. Blacks of slave ancestry since their ancestors were forced to come to America. And American Indians because their lands were taken from them. But that means NO affirmative action to black African immigrants. Why should affirmative action slots designed for blacks of slave ancestry be given to black African immigrants whose ancestors captured and sold black slaves to white/Jewish slave ships? But be that as it may, the real reason why blacks need affirmative action is because they can't compete academically with other races. We should be honest about that instead of pretending that black academic failure is due to past oppression. If so, why so blacks excel so much in sports? Shouldn't blacks fail in sports too because they are so 'lost' and 'traumatized' by history?
Another thing. Speaking of debts, it goes all around. For instance, Chinese built the railroads. Chinese laborers weren't treated very nice, but they worked hard. As the result of the railroads, many blacks got jobs as porters and made something of themselves. So, blacks owe something to Chinese. Granted, those railroads made the genocide of the Indians much easier. So, Chinese labor did something good for blacks but something horrible for Indians. But if we take a longer historical look, we can argue that the world owes something to the Chinese who invented paper, compass, weaving, gun powder, and host of other things that came to benefit mankind.
Also, Liu is being very narrow when she pinpoints black civil rights movement as the reason for Asian success in the US. For one thing, discrimination against Asians wasn't as stark as discrimination against blacks. So, the idea that Asians suddenly got all this freedom thanks to black civil rights movement is pure bunk. Also, the main reason why Asians found opportunities in the US is because of white achievements in political system, industry, science and technology, medicine, business, rule of law, and etc. Even though whites favored their own kind for much of US history, they are the ones who built the template and structures that made America possible. To this extent, even American Indians and black Americans owe something to whites. If not for white-built America, American Indians would still be running around like savages hunting bison with stone-age bow and arrow. And if whites hadn't brought blacks to America and had left the Dark Continent alone, just about all blacks would be living in mudhuts without written language and benefits of technology.
Also, it's wrong to say American prosperity owes to slavery per se. Brazil had 10x the slaves the US did and yet 1/10th the economy. Latin American nations all practiced slavery on a larger scale but remained poorer. Africa had slavery for 10,000 yrs and yet remained primitive. Muslims had slavery until the 20th century when Europeans forced them to end it, and yet the Muslim world was poorer. Slavery was common all throughout Chinese history, and Mao's China was a slave-gulag state. Yet, it remained mired in poverty.
So, if slavery leads to prosperity, it didn't happen in most places. Also, the success of Anglo-colonies in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia(that didn't rely on black slavery) shows that there was something efficient and sound about the Anglo model. Also, even the black civil rights movement was founded on white principles of justice and liberty. Blacks didn't invent those concepts. Rather, they illustrated the hypocrisy of whites who say one thing but do another. Blacks were arguing for a fuller implementation of white & western principles of rule of law for citizens of the nation. The fact is the US has essentially been an extension of European Western Civilization, and THAT FORMULA is the reason for its success. And that was why Liu and her kind wanted to come to the West. If she loves black people and culture so much, she can move to Africa. No one is stopping her. But notice that most Chinese immigrants prefer Anglo-founded US, Anglo-made Canada, and Anglo-developed Australia. Chinese love white things, just like Chinese women love white men and want to have white-looking kids. Indeed, even Liu's pro-black blathering is a white thing as David Cole points out. She is imitating white people who worship blacks as the superior race. According to PC, three groups are especially holy: Jews, blacks, and Homos. Since Asians aren't included in the holiness sweepstakes, Asians like Liu feel a need to latch onto one of the Holies. In her case, it's blacks. But other Asians suck up to one of the other two. John Yoo sucked up to Neocon Zionists in the destruction of Iraq. Amy Chua sucks up to Zionists and Jews. And other Asians suck up to holy homos. Having no value of their own according to PC sweepstakes, Asians seek to associate themselves with one of the holy three. In this, they are imitating white gentiles who, having been burdened with 'white guilt', feel a need to atone for their sins by serving one of the Holy Three: Jews, blacks, or Homos, or all of the above. Who decides who is holy? Jews do because they got the power of media and academia. So, if whites or Asians wanted to champion the Palestinian cause and BDS, that will spell trouble since Jews demand that whites favor Zionist imperialists over Palestinians.
Speaking of debt, blacks also owe a debt to other peoples, including Asians. Even though they were brought over as slaves to the US, they did take part in the American system and American Empire. Thus, blacks eventually rose in rank and served in the US military and government. As such, they aided and abetted in US imperialism. Lots of blacks served in Vietnam and killed tons of 'gooks'. Blacks raped many Vietnamese women. And blacks in US government and military played a role in Wars for Israel. Colin Powell served Bush and Neocons in telling lies about Iraq to smash that nation. Obama, the puppet of Zionists, destroyed Libya and Syria to appease his Jewish masters. So, blacks also have blood on their hands. They willfully took part in the American Empire that killed millions of Asians and Muslims. MLK also took part in imperialism. Even though he opposed the Vietnam War, he supported Zionist mass murder of Palestinians. Because his handlers were Jewish Zionists, he turned a blind eye to the total destruction of Palestine.
Also, even though blacks were met with challenge and violence in the Civil Rights Movement, it was NOTHING compared to the Vietnam War. How many blacks died in the civil rights struggle? Dozens if that. But over 2 million Vietnamese perished in the war instigated by the US that divided the nation in the 50s and set up a puppet regime in the south. The most inspirational struggle of the 60s was not the black civil rights struggle which, by the way, had the support of majority of Democrats and Republicans and passed with flying colors in 64. The real struggle was in Vietnam where US imperialists sought to maintain their puppet regime in the South. In the war, US turned Saigon into Sodom and Gomorrah. Chinese minority in Vietnam collaborated with the Americans and exploited the Vietnamese. Millions of Vietnamese women were turned into prostitutes. White and black soldiers routinely raped women like shown in Oliver Stone's PLATOON and DePalma's CASUALTIES OF WAR. US dropped more bombs than in WWII. US used agent orange to destroy entire forests, and so many kids in Vietnam suffer to this day.
So, one could argue that No People did more to challenge Western Neo-Imperialism in the 60s than the Vietnamese did. True, Muhammad Ali refused to serve in the war on the basis of 'Viet Cong didn't call me no nigger', but the price he paid was being banned from boxing for 3 yrs, after which he regained his championship. In contrast, the price paid for by the Vietnamese was incalculable. As Jean-Paul Sartre argued, US war in Vietnam was an act of genocide. And yet, the Vietnamese patriots continued to fight and drove out the US imperialists who raped and ravaged the nation. Other than the 2 million who died, think of the millions more who were orphaned and maimed. But according to Liu, Asians owe something to blacks. Did Asian soldiers rape black women en masse like black American soldiers raped and murdered Vietnamese people? The fact is blacks, in seeking equality in the US, also gained position in the US government and military. As such, they too joined in the neo-imperialist enterprise of the US. When the Bush regime cooked up bogus lies about WMD to invade Iraq, blacks in US government took part in the crime. When black Obama took orders from his Jewish bosses to crush Libya, aid terrorists in Syria, and recruit neo-Nazis in Ukraine, he participated. Of course, Asian-Americans did too. All those Asian-Americans who serve in the Deep State also took part in the Zionist-instigated Wars for Israel that tore the Muslim World to shreds. But I wonder if so-called 'progressives' like Liu denounced Obama's criminal war on Libya? Or his use of Victoria Nuland(the Zionist) to recruit Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to topple the government there?
Perhaps, the problem with Liu is her excess of privilege. Knowing only privilege all her life, she knows blacks only from the Holy Narrative that is stuck on TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Maybe it would do her some good to really put her money where her mouth is. She should renounce her privilege and her vaunted position at Swarthmore. She should move to Detroit or some black-majority community and see what is happening. She will notice that nearly all the interracial violence between blacks and yellows is black on yellow? Why? Blacks see yellows as a bunch of ching-chong weaklings who are easy prey. Liu's minds is stuck on Civil Rights Narrative she gets from New York Times(that ignores the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians by Zionists) even though history has moved on. Yes, blacks were discriminated against in the past. They were humiliated and treated as second-class citizens.
But history changes and moves on. Consider the Chinese. For nearly a 100 yrs, they were humiliated by Western Powers and the Japanese. They were gunned down, raped, addicted to opium(by Jewish merchants), and humiliated. During this 100 yrs of humiliation and then in the crazy Mao era, a 100 million Chinese died unnatural deaths. China was truly a sad case, the sick man of Asia.
But that was then, this is now. Today, China is on the rise and a great power. It went from a victim-nation to a victor-nation. Chinese now brutally oppress Tibetans and Uighurs. Would it make sense to pretend that China of today is China of yesterday when it was weak and 'sick'?
Or take the Jews. Many of them arrived on American shores with only shirts on their backs. They worked as peddlers for nickels and dimes. Many toiled away in garment industries. And in WWII, European Jews were met with horror of Nazism. But look at Jews today. Does it make sense to pretend today's Jews are like yesterdays' Jews? Today, Jews are the most powerful people in the world. They control the elite institutions and industries of the US that is the lone superpower. They are the ones who gave us all these Wars for Israel that destroyed millions of Muslim lives. They are the ones pushing New Cold War on Russia because Russia insists on national sovereignty than putting out to Jewish globalist oligarchs like George Soros. And today, Jews treat Palestinians like Nazis treated Jews.
As for blacks, they now dominate sports and pop culture that do so much to shape American minds. As Americans worship athletes and pop stars, blacks are worshiped as the Master Race. Also, white women with jungle fever worship black men as superior studs. White boys cuck out to blacks. And blacks know they are tougher and stronger. In schools and streets, they routinely beat up whites, Asians, Hispanics, Hindus, and Muslims. But because they are deemed as 'cool' and 'badass' and holy, they get away with all their foul behavior. The BLM nonsense was predicated on the notion that 'gentle giant' Michael Brown killed by a 'racist' cop. After all the federal investigation, it turned out the crazy thug charged the policeman who shot him in self-defense. We are no longer living in the era of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. We are living in an age when most of the racial violence and thuggery comes from blacks because of biological factors. Blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. The reason why the idea of yellows and browns standing in solidarity with blacks is a fantasy is that non-blacks are too fearful of black thug behavior. Liu can fantasize such a scenario because she lives a life of privilege and only rubs shoulders with fancy blacks allowed into elite setting via affirmative action. If she really wants to practice her kind of solidarity, I suggest she open a nail salon in a black community. Have a real job, rub shoulders with blacks in the streets instead of hiding in some privileged college community while spouting off cliches about 'social justice'.
